The comparative gastrointestinal responses of children and adults following consumption of sweets formulated with sucrose, isomalt and lycasin HBC

Abstract

Objectives:To determine the gastrointestinal responses of children and adults following consumption of sucrose, isomalt and lycasin HBC and to compare these at two different dose levels in adults. Design: Both studies were randomised, double-blind, cross-over designs. Subjects: Fifty-one children aged 6 -9 y were recruited from primary schools in the Salford area of Greater Manchester. Fortyeight children completed the study. Fifty healthy adult volunteers aged 18 -24 y were recruited from the student population of the University of Salford. All subjects completed the study. Interventions: Children consumed either 25 g of sucrose, isomalt or lycasin HBC and adults 25 and 40 g in hard boiled sweets per day for two consecutive test days. Test periods of 2 days were separated by 7 day washout periods. Children consumed sweets throughout test days and adults in no less than 30 min but no more than 90 min. Subjects reported the prevalence and magnitude of flatulence, borborygmi, bloating, colic, bowel movements and watery faeces. Results: Consumption of 25 g isomalt provoked a mild laxative effect in children but not in adults. Consumption of 25 g isomalt significantly increased the prevalence and magnitude of gastrointestinal responses in both children and adults. Consumption of 25 g lycasin HBC significantly increased borborygml in children and adults but no other gastrointestinal responses. Consumption of 40 g lycasin HBC or isomalt by adults significantly increased the mean frequency of bowel movements and the number of subjects passing watery faeces. In adults, 40 g isomalt and lycasin HBC provoked significantly more gastrointestinal responses compared to 25 g of either product. Conclusions: Consumption of 25 g lycasin HBC does not provoke an unacceptable laxative effect or gastrointestinal response in children or adults compared to 25 g isomalt, which is associated with a mild laxative effect and increase in gastrointestinal responses. In adults gastrointestinal responses following consumption of products were found to be dose dependent.

Gut hormone secretion, gastric emptying, and glycemic responses to erythritol and xylitol in lean and obese subjects

“…As a consequence, erythritol is better tolerated than xylitol, provoking less gastrointestinal side effects such as diarrhea and bloating. However, when erythritol is consumed as a single oral bolus exceeding 35 g, undesirable effects, including nausea and borborygmi, are common (18,19,25,37). Repetitive exposure appears to lead to increased tolerance through adaptive processes (23).…”

Short-term digestive tolerance of chocolate formulated with maltitol in children

“…Consequently, our statistical outline included analysis relative to baseline and to the control group (sucrose). For the three tested doses, maltitol-sweetened chocolate did not induce abdominal discomfort to the children as none of the mean parameter scores was higher than 3 AU (Lee et al 2002). As in adult studies, the main parameter influenced by maltitol consumption was flatulence (Koutsouu et al 1996).…”

“…Compared with the same dose of another sweetener such as isomalt or lactitol, maltitol exhibited lower flatulence and borborygmus scores (Koutsou et al 1996). In order to compare the different tolerance studies and the physiological parameters they included, such as abdominal rumbling, abdominal bloating, flatulence, nausea and diarrhea, a score measurement was adopted using visual scales (Lee et al 2002). Generally, a parameter whose score is under 3 is considered minor (Lee et al 2002).…”

“…In order to compare the different tolerance studies and the physiological parameters they included, such as abdominal rumbling, abdominal bloating, flatulence, nausea and diarrhea, a score measurement was adopted using visual scales (Lee et al 2002). Generally, a parameter whose score is under 3 is considered minor (Lee et al 2002). Considering its 'safe for teeth' properties (Imfeld et al 1994) and its low-glycemic response (Livesey 2003), maltitol could be an ingredient of interest for confectionery, especially for children, by lowering sugar consumption and preventing plaque accumulation and tooth decay development.…”

Short-term digestive tolerance of high-dose of NUTRIOSE®FB10 in adult

“…Companies producing low-digestible carbohydrates like polyols and dietary fibers must know very precisely the threshold of digestive tolerance to help manage the future development of foodstuffs (Lee et al 2002). This study shows that the digestive tolerance of the dextrin NUTRIOSE w FB10 is excellent, similar to that of maltodextrin (used as a placebo).…”